US Supreme Court hands wealthy donors more sway with latest decision 

The United States Supreme Court’s decision to lift limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with a candidate will provide greater flexibility for political fundraising.

The court on Tuesday ruled in the Federal Election Commission (FEC) v The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) case, which overturned a more than 50-year-old federal election law that limited coordinated spending efforts between political parties and their candidates.

Unlike super political action committees (super PACs), which are prohibited from coordinating directly with campaigns and instead spend independently on advertisements supporting or opposing candidates or ballot initiatives, political parties can coordinate directly with candidates’ campaigns. Because of that coordination, spending by political parties has historically been subject to federal campaign spending limits.

The court ultimately decided that restricting spending is an act of limiting free speech, which is a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

The high court ruled in favour of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) in the case with a vote of 6-3. The court’s six conservative justices voted in support of the NRSC’s argument, with the three liberal justices in dissent.

When the case was first brought to court in 2022, the Federal Election Commission argued that coordinated spending was effectively the same as making direct contributions to a campaign. The agency said the limits help prevent corruption by stopping wealthy donors from using party committees to funnel unlimited money to candidates.

The challenge was brought by party committees representing two Republican candidates— then-Representative Steve Chabot of Ohio and then-Senate candidate JD Vance.

“This decision, as with its other campaign finance decisions since Citizens United, will inevitably render the government more responsive to special interests and indifferent to the demands of the American people,” Donald Sherman, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, a Washington, DC-based watchdog group, said in a statement.

Has this been challenged before?

The 1971 law was first challenged in 2001 when a Colorado court upheld the restrictions. The law was challenged again in 2022.

In 2024, a federal appeals court in Cincinnati, Ohio, upheld the spending limits. The Republican committees then appealed the ruling to the US Supreme Court.

After Trump took office, the Federal Election Commission reversed its position and dropped its defence of the law. By that point, Vance, one of the original challengers, had become vice president.

The Supreme Court then allowed the law’s supporters to intervene and defend it in the government’s place. Those intervenors included the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which argued that the spending limits should remain in place.

How will this change political spending going into midterm elections?

The ruling is expected to drive donations and campaign spending away from super PACs and towards political parties and their committees.

The law that the National Republican Senatorial Committee challenged had imposed limits on the amount a national party committee in coordination with a candidate’s campaign, with caps varying by the size of the population the candidate would represent. For Senate candidates, restrictions were as low as $127,000 for some races and as much as $3.9m for races in more populous states.

For House of Representatives races, in which each representative represents approximately the same number of people, parties could spend up to $127,000.

“By striking down these unconstitutional caps on coordinated spending, the Court has restored core political speech and ensured parties can compete on a level playing field. We are ready to fully support our candidates and put them in the strongest possible position to win in 2026 and beyond,” the NRSC said in a statement on the heels of the ruling.

Although donations to political parties and committees still face legal limits, those committees can now spend an unlimited amount in coordination with a candidate’s campaign.

In a longer analysis first obtained and published by ABC News, the NRSC acknowledged that the case would affect both political parties but would more greatly benefit Republicans because the GOP has been outraising their Democratic counterparts.

Senate Democrats slammed the court’s decision, saying it is a “win for billionaire donors and special interests who want more influence over the GOP agenda and an invitation for corruption”, in a statement.

How is this different from Citizens United?

The latest ruling does not directly affect the landmark 2010 ruling in a case on Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, but similarly expands the role that money can play in a federal election and may change the shape of that spending.

In the Citizens United case, the high court ruled that the government cannot restrict political spending by corporations or unions as long as spending is not directly coordinated with a candidate’s political campaign.

That decision ultimately paved the way for the rise of super PACs, which increased outside spending in elections. Under current federal campaign finance rules, an individual can donate $5,000 per year to a traditional PAC and $3,500 to an individual candidate. Unlike PACs, super PACs can accept unlimited donations as long as they do not donate directly to a candidate. Instead, they fund advertising campaigns that support a given candidate. In the decade after the Citizens United ruling, political spending surged.

Between 2010 and 2020, super PACs spent almost $3bn on federal elections, according to analysis from the Brennan Center for Justice. In the 2024 cycle, 100 billionaire families accounted for $2.6bn in campaign spending according to analysis from the think tank Americans For Tax Fairness.

This most recent decision may similarly increase the amount of money spent on elections, but it also may weaken the influence of super PACs.

While the political parties can still only accept limited donations from individuals and corporations, the donation ceiling for individuals is considerably higher for party committees than for single candidates, and those committees can now direct unlimited funds in coordination with a candidate’s campaign. In addition to the benefits of that direct coordination, political parties and their candidates also have some structural advantages, such as the FCC requirement that broadcasters offer them advertising at the lowest price offered to commercial advertiser – an advantage not offered to super PACs.

These advantages may encourage donors to max-out their donations to political party committees, in place of – or in addition to – donations to super PACs.

Federal Election Commission v The National Republican Senatorial Committee asked whether existing campaign rules that political parties impose on themselves limit how they can raise and spend money. But experts believe that combined, these changes could incentivise politicians even more to cater to special interests.

“Yet again, the Supreme Court ignored the real-world impacts of its decision to grant high-dollar donors greater influence over our democracy,” Sherman added.